Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25774368›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2015

Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: Single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies - is there a simple answer to a complex question?

Gill Harvey, Alison Kitson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gill HarveySchool of Nursing, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. ; Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alison KitsonSchool of Nursing, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. ; Central Adelaide Local Health Network (CALHN), Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How best to achieve the translation of research evidence into routine policy and practice remains an enduring challenge in health systems across the world. The complexities associated with changing behaviour at an individual, team, organizational and system level have led many academics to conclude that tailored, multi-faceted strategies provide the most effective approach to knowledge translation. However, a recent overview of systematic reviews questions this position and sheds doubt as to whether multi-faceted strategies are any better than single ones. In this paper, we argue that this either-or distinction is too simplistic and fails to recognize the complexity that is inherent in knowledge translation. Drawing on organizational theory relating to boundaries and boundary management, we illustrate the need for translational strategies that take account of the type of knowledge to be implemented, the context of implementation and the people and processes involved.

Indexed as

BoundariesBoundary ManagementEvidence-Based HealthcareKnowledge Translation

Identifiers

PMID25774368
PMCPMC4357977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.